Update: The permit that was approved this week by the state Air Pollution Control Board does not contain the "out clause" for mercury emissions. Information from an SELC statement was incorrect, and they have apologized.
Under heavy pressure from lobbyists for Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia announced yesterday that it will permit the construction of a new coal-fired power plant, even though doing so clearly violates the law.
Just days after NASA's James Hansen testified that avoiding climate catastrophe will require immediately stopping construction of new coal-fired power plants around the world (and shutting down old ones), and just months after the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, Virginia decided that what the state and the world really need is another coal fired power plant with no controls on release of carbon dioxide -- and gave Dominion the go ahead to build their "Hybrid Energy Center" in Wise County in Appalachia (hybrid because it will burn two different types of dirty coal).
That's in clear violation of the law, as Cale Jaffe, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center testified, since the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA, states are required to implement the best technology available to control carbon dioxide -- which were the grounds Kansas used when it rejected a similar power plant proposal. And even though Virginia's decision did tighten some sulfur dioxide and other pollution limits (Chesapeake Climate Action Network's Susanna Murley has more on why this is a partial victory), it still includes an "out clause" that would permit Dominion to emit unlimited quantities of mercury -- another clear violation of the Clean Air Act.
What makes my jaw drop a little about Virginia's decision is that it not only screws the environment, but actually explicitly raises power costs to finance plant construction at a time when Virginians are reeling from an 18 percent increase in electricity (and continuing high fuel costs). In fact, state officials actually estimated that the increased electricity bills will cost 1,474 jobs (PDF)as businesses lay people off just so they can pay their electricity bills. The loss will far outweigh the 75 permanent jobs the plant will create.
This seems to create extraordinary political vulnerability for Tim Kaine, who's said to be on Barack Obama's short list: Would Democrats really want a vice presidential candidate whose administration just broke the law to raise electricity rates at a time when the national political debate is centered around bring fuel costs down?
The only silver lining here is that there's some chance that Dominion could spend over a billion dollars building the plant, only to have it rendered financially obsolete by new limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Today's Washington Post coverage of the decision offered what should be sobering advice for Dominion officials:
"It's basically, if not stopped dead in its tracks, pretty much close to it," said Richard Cortright, a managing director in the utility-analysis group at Standard and Poor's. "Do you want to start a plant in that atmosphere, not knowing what might come down the pike?"
Another coal plant bites the dust
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
DarthPetrol Posted 5:04 am
26 Jun 2008
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:07 am
26 Jun 2008
No, but there are general legal obligations not to despoil the commons. Massachusetts vs. EPA and other legal judgements have affirmed that those general obligations apply to greenhouse gasses.
Obligations to refrain from polluting in ways that harm other states also exist under international law.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:21 am
26 Jun 2008
Permalink
Millstone Posted 5:26 am
26 Jun 2008
Although if the alternative was to burn more natural gas then my suspicion would be that rates would increase even further and lead to even more jobs lost.
I was also amused by their prediction of commercial carbon and storage by 2012, only the most diehard CCS optimist would believe that now. 2020 is the number I hear getting kicked around more often, and even that is given the optimistic caveat.
I don't think this plant is a great idea but it isn't clear what the alternatives were and the opposition didn't seem to be interested (able to?)in providing them.
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:36 am
26 Jun 2008
It is faulty to argue that emitting small quantities of CO2 (by breathing) is legally equivalent to emitting millions of tonnes of CO2 (by burning coal).
The application of law always has to balance equity with economic efficiency. Both of those principles strongly support the restriction or abolishment of coal-fired electricity.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
tanu Posted 8:36 am
27 Jun 2008
Unfortunately, the major problem is that coal companies try hard to prove that they are working on this problem where as in reality doing nothing measurable to begin reducing these emissions. For more information on the feasibility of the Virginia plant please read (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/03150/6704/393/54 ...)
For more information on "Clean coal" please read http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/
Permalink